I have to admit, having now seen it, I never fully got used to it. How long does it take to get used to it?

I think that depends on each person. I mean, I'm well used to it now.
You've seen hundreds of hours of it.
Yeah. You know, I'm used to it to the point that yesterday I was in a lab in Los Angeles, before I came over here. It was first thing in the morning, I went to a lab to look at some reels that were being printed. And the first one I looked at was 48 frames and it looked fine. Great. The second one that they played me was the 24 frames and I didn't like it at all.
Really? So you're at the point now where you don't like watching 24 frames?
I just noticed the strobing. But, it is an acquired taste. And the one thing is that it's not the look of film. I mean, we all grow up with 24 frames. But it's neither a good thing or a bad thing -- it is different. And it's interesting the response, but I'm obviously fascinated by people's reactions to it. And, you know, there's going to be the cinephiles that are going to hate it, obviously. There are going to be people that are a bit like you, probably, one way or the other.
I'm fascinated by the technology aspect. But I'd like to see the movie again without it to compare.

But you talk to anyone under the age of 20, they don't give a $#@!. They don't care about 24 frames. They don't care about the look of cinema. Kids, I mean, most of the kids that I speak to -- anywhere from 8 years old and up through teenagers; because I've been talking to a lot of them who have seen "The Hobbit" -- all they say is that the 3D looks fantastic. They don't actually understand that some of that is the 48 frames. They don't get the difference. I guess they're not used to the difference between the two. But, the 48 doesn't hurt the 3D. Actually, the 48 makes it easier to watch and it'salmost like at 24 frames, 3D didn't really quite reach its potential. Because of the strobing and the fact that each eye is getting a different strobe. But, you go to 48, and suddenly it feels like the two are made for each other. It almost feels like that completes that technical puzzle.

Regardless though, the effect is the same. A 120 Hertz TV repeats each frame of a typical 24 fps movie around 5 times within 1 second while an ordinary 60 Hertz refresh rate only repeats it 2.x times. And that's why the former causes the soap opera effect that is completely unnatural as far as cinematic movies go.

And The Hobbit's 48fps basically goes in a similar direction because that's exactly twice as many frames as with conventional movies. So you would have a similar experience even without high Hertz displays.

Same here, Avatar was a good 3D experience but would rather stick with 2D. I have found that some releases are strictly 3D now with the 2D releasing later if at all.

Tap-a-hoe

"When I was 12, I milked my eel into a pot of turtle stew. I flogged the one-eyed snake, I skinned my sausage. I made the bald man cry into the turtle stew, which I believe my sister ate. At least I hope she did."

Regardless though, the effect is the same. A 120 Hertz TV repeats each frame of a typical 24 fps movie around 5 times within 1 second while an ordinary 60 Hertz refresh rate only repeats it 2.x times. And that's why the former causes the soap opera effect that is completely unnatural as far as cinematic movies go.

And The Hobbit's 48fps basically goes in a similar direction because that's exactly twice as many frames as with conventional movies. So you would have a similar experience even without high Hertz displays.

The difference is that HFR actually fills in those refreshes with new images, whereas high Hertz just makes your TV refresh the same frame a number of times.

I'm sure there will be some similarities, but HFR will also be much more impressive and make more sense than high Hertz.

Tonight I attended an high frame rate (HFR) 3D advance screening of The Hobbit. Solid but very familiar. It lacks the urgency, scale, and progression of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Visual effects are some of the best out there but really felt more like a refinement of what was done before. The controversial 48 frames per second format did not bother me as much as I anticipated but I am not in love with it. I will say that it helped make the 3D really crisp, as Peter Jackson has argued. It did make some shots feel "fake" and overall the look reminded me of a BBC movie or TV show. This is one of the few films I will recommend seeing the 3D version of because otherwise you might just be bored honestly if you aren't a hardcore fan. Overall, lacked the fresh impact of the LOTR trilogy.

I see a lot of these comparisons to LOTR...I wonder if it's an unfair comparison. Often the latter's glory is tarnished by the standard of the former...LOTR was much more of an epic tale than The Hobbit.

That is true. But it isn't even necessarily the story so much as that it feels too familiar. Like a lot of "already seen this before" even if it still looks great and is more polished than before. It's akin to how I felt about BioShock 2.

It does have issues with pacing and certainly seems drawn out for the sake of filling time. It's my opinion that 3 films, each being close 3 hours probably, is kind-of a stretch for The Hobbit.

I just booked my ticket to the very first screening in standard 3D at my local cinema back home tomorrow afternoon. I'm flying home for Christmas this evening. If there's one good thing about living in a small town its not really having to worry about booking cinema tickets far in advance and the seating is first come first serve..might just go an hour early to get the best seat center/back.

Just got back from the cinema, $#@!ing loved it!
It was funny, action packed and just nice to be back in Middle-Earth. I thoroughly enjoyed all of it. Sucks that the next two aren't out for the next two years though

I watched in normal frame rate and not 3D, still absolutely stunning to look at. Only thing I didn't like was the amount of CGI, I think having real life actors in heavy make up and using CGI for falling off cliffs etc... like the LOTR works better.

My higher-ups at 411mania.com asked me to write a full review of the film since apparently I was the only one on staff that caught an advance screening. Feel free to check it out here. Glad to hear that people are enjoying the movie at least.

Was he? Its been years since I read The Hobbit..I only really remember the main parts of it like the beginning, meeting Gollum in the cave and the end.

EDIT: I gave it a 7..really wanted to give it an 8, but its just not quite there. About a 7.8 or 7.9.

If it's a 7.9, then isn't that closer to an 8? lol

But as for Saruman (and Galadriel), no they're not in The Hobbit, but the meeting you see does occur at that time. It's just not mentioned in The Hobbit, because Tolkien only focused on Bilbo's story.

There's a very big sub-plot that Gandalf and The White Council were working on during the time of The Hobbit, which is why Gandalf always left the group and came back. Peter Jackson decided to include that sub-plot in these movies.